Michael Moore and Gun Control Debate

[Tsukiyumi]

Worked for me in Bowling For Columbine. Still makes me want to punch Micheal Moore.

I've not seen that one, I did enjoy Sicko though...

I haven't seen that one, but I assume that one actually had a point. Bowling For Columbine was just a series of scenes; no real points being made, or even opinions being expressed by him. There was no narrative, IMO. I guess if you're already anti-gun ownership you might see some sort of point, but I went into it expecting to see some arguments being put forth.

Instead it just implied things like, "Ooh, look. These people are shooting guns at targets, and those people over there are buying bullets at Wal-Mart, isn't that awful?"

Totally pointless movie.

[Captain Seafort]

I haven't seen that one, but I assume that one actually had a point. Bowling For Columbine was just a series of scenes; no real points being made, or even opinions being expressed by him. There was no narrative, IMO. I guess if you're already anti-gun ownership you might see some sort of point, but I went into it expecting to see some arguments being put forth.

He never made any direct statements, but the point was made very clearly (including statistics on firearms deaths in the US versus other countries) that firearms are far too readily available to the US civilian population

Instead it just implied things like, "Ooh, look. These people are shooting guns at targets, and those people over there are buying bullets at Wal-Mart, isn't that awful?"

Target shooting is one thing. Buying bullets in a supermarket is fucking scary.

Totally pointless movie.

Not at all. Moore's an obnoxious git, but the point's he was making were perfectly valid.

[Tsukiyumi]

...He never made any direct statements...

...the point's he was making were perfectly valid.

Like you just said, there were no direct statements. Any points made were inferred by the viewer.

Buying bullets in a supermarket is f***ing scary.

Because the bullets bought at the supermarket are more dangerous than the ones I can drive slightly farther to buy, yes?

But, I digress. My point is right there: I saw people buying bullets at Wal-Mart, and thought, "So what?"

Most of the movie, IMO, relied on the viewer to already have an anti-gun mindset to make any sense. I was expecting to see some solid arguments, maybe *gasp* even some counter-arguments. Instead, it's presented as though I should already agree with him, and every scene should have me nodding in agreement. It's pretentious, one-sided political drivel. IMO.

[Captain Seafort]

Like you just said, there were no direct statements. Any points made were inferred by the viewer.

Exactly - he simply provided evidence, and let viewers come to their own conclusions based on that evidence. The fact that the death rate due to firearms in the US is far higher than Canada or the UK should speak for itself.

Because the bullets bought at the supermarket are more dangerous than the ones I can drive slightly farther to buy, yes?

Because a supermarket presumably doesn't have iron bars and half an inch of plastic or glass between its goods and the customer.

But, I digress. My point is right there: I saw people buying bullets at Wal-Mart, and thought, "So what?"

The fact that that's your reaction, and that it would probably be the typical reaction in the States, is a large part of the reason it scares me. It gives the impression of a nation that considers a box of ammunition to be of no more consequence than a bunch of bananas.

Most of the movie, IMO, relied on the viewer to already have an anti-gun mindset to make any sense. I was expecting to see some solid arguments, maybe *gasp* even some counter-arguments. Instead, it's presented as though I should already agree with him, and every scene should have me nodding in agreement. It's pretentious, one-sided political drivel. IMO.

He's an obnoxious git, but that doesn't change the fact that the data speaks for itself - it's easier and quicker to buy a firearm in the states than it is to rent a flat here. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.

[Tsukiyumi]

Hey, I was talking about the lack of points made, not that he didn't provide evidence. My interpretation of that evidence is apparently not the way I was "supposed" to believe going into the film.

If you want to discuss gun ownership again, we can take this discussion outside.

[Tsukiyumi]

Okay, I'll go; we can move the posts later.

Because the bullets bought at the supermarket are more dangerous than the ones I can drive slightly farther to buy, yes?

Because a supermarket presumably doesn't have iron bars and half an inch of plastic or glass between its goods and the customer.

Neither do gun stores. The lack of armed salesmen in the Wal-Mart is a point I'll concede.

But, I digress. My point is right there: I saw people buying bullets at Wal-Mart, and thought, "So what?"

The fact that that's your reaction, and that it would probably be the typical reaction in the States, is a large part of the reason it scares me. It gives the impression of a nation that considers a box of ammunition to be of no more consequence than a bunch of bananas.

I can also buy a long butcher knife at Wal-Mart that could just as easily kill someone. They weren't selling the bullets to anyone who couldn't legally own a firearm.

...it's easier and quicker to buy a firearm in the states than it is to rent a flat here. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.

It was quick for me because they scanned my hands, and did an immediate FBI background check. Guess what? I'm not a criminal. Process over.

[Captain Seafort]

Neither do gun stores.

But, I digress. My point is right there: I saw people buying bullets at Wal-Mart, and thought, "So what?"

I can also buy a long butcher knife at Wal-Mart that could just as easily kill someone.

Not from twenty yards away.

They weren't selling the bullets to anyone who couldn't legally own a firearm.

Which, of course, makes it utterly impossible for someone to grab a box of ammo and run.

It was quick for me because they scanned my hands

Checking fingerprints or looking for residue?

did an immediate FBI background check. Guess what? I'm not a criminal. Process over.

Which raises yet more questions of why any civilian organisation should have access to criminal records.

Of course, all of this is developing from the assumption that private ownership of firearms, especially handguns, is anything other than fucking stupid.

[Tsukiyumi]

It was quick for me because they scanned my hands

Checking fingerprints or looking for residue?

Ten-finger background check.

did an immediate FBI background check. Guess what? I'm not a criminal. Process over.

Which raises yet more questions of why any civilian organisation should have access to criminal records.

Because all anyone has to do is pay a fee. That's how bounty hunters find people.

Of course, all of this is developing from the assumption that private ownership of firearms, especially handguns, is anything other than f***ing stupid.

It isn't an assumption, it's an opinion. for the record, I think the opinion that the police can somehow save a person from home invaders is f*cking stupid.

We all like facts here, right?

Here's some facts.

1) The Department of Justice statistics show that 80% of criminals in prison got the firearms for their crime from illegal sources.
1a) Before you say "tighter regulation", please remember that the US has way too many miles of coastline and borders to ever seal completely.
1b) unless you want to search every house in the country arbitrarily, you won't find all of the guns. Oh, right. That would be highly illegal anyways.

2) Even though we have way more guns per capita, and we are a way larger country, we still don't have nearly the highest murder rates in the world. Even Poland has a higher rate.

3) The large majority of firearm deaths are suicides. Those people still would've found a way to kill themselves; banning guns wouldn't help. I imagine this also colors the statistics a bit.

4) Gun deaths are the same as they were 30 years ago, even though people have access to much more advanced weapons and ammunition today.

So, I don't see why people assume that legal gun owners do anything but add another layer of defense against violent criminals. I can't flee, the cops won't show up until after I'm beaten or stabbed to death even if no one had guns, and yet I'd somehow be safer if I didn't own a gun? I would have little defense against a group of intruders without one.

[Captain Seafort]

Because all anyone has to do is pay a fee. That's how bounty hunters find people.

Great. The US government is selling criminal records. Another reason I'm glad I don't live in the States.

It isn't an assumption, it's an opinion. for the record, I think the opinion that the police can somehow save a person from home invaders is f*cking stupid.

There are other ways of protecting people than simply stopping criminals directly. And there are better ways of protecting yourself than shooting back. My option would be to simply lock myself in the loo.

1) The Department of Justice statistics show that 80% of criminals in prison got the firearms for their crime from illegal sources.

And what exactly were those illegal sources? Nicking them off people who bought them legally?

1a) Before you say "tighter regulation", please remember that the US has way too many miles of coastline and borders to ever seal completely.

Of course not, but the fact that its impossible to keep all weapons out is not an excuse for flooding the country with them.

1b) unless you want to search every house in the country arbitrarily, you won't find all of the guns. Oh, right. That would be highly illegal anyways.

Easy solution to that problem - change the law.

2) Even though we have way more guns per capita, and we are a way larger country, we still don't have nearly the highest murder rates in the world. Even Poland has a higher rate.

And? The murder rate for firearms paints a different story, showing that a big part of the problem the States have is due to firearms. Ergo, trying to limit that aspect of the problem will probably have a disproportionate effect on the overall murder rate.

3) The large majority of firearm deaths are suicides. Those people still would've found a way to kill themselves; banning guns wouldn't help. I imagine this also colors the statistics a bit.

You didn't read that article properly.

Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

Homicides comprise a far higher proportion of all firearms deaths in the US than other countries in its income bracket.

4) Gun deaths are the same as they were 30 years ago, even though people have access to much more advanced weapons and ammunition today.

So what? A firearm doesn't need a dozen fancy gizmos to kill people.

So, I don't see why people assume that legal gun owners do anything but add another layer of defense against violent criminals.

Because the US, unlike Somalia, is supposed to be a civilised country. In civilised countries the task of protecting the population from violent criminals fall to the police. If the police aren't up to the job, then the solution is to improve the police, not vigilantism.

I can't flee, the cops won't show up until after I'm beaten or stabbed to death even if no one had guns, and yet I'd somehow be safer if I didn't own a gun? I would have little defense against a group of intruders without one.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the solution to being mugged is to fight back. My solution to being mugged would be to give em the fucking wallet. If somebody want that, then they can have it - I've no intention of risking pissing them off.

Of course, if somebody's simply out looking for people to beat up or kill then there's bugger all that can be done, but if that's a major threat in your area then you need to Motorman the place, not just have civvies walking round with guns.

[Sionnach Glic]

Split from the "Great movies you hate" thread.

[Tsukiyumi]

Because all anyone has to do is pay a fee. That's how bounty hunters find people.

Great. The US government is selling criminal records. Another reason I'm glad I don't live in the States.

Law enforcement can't be everywhere no matter where you live.

It isn't an assumption, it's an opinion. for the record, I think the opinion that the police can somehow save a person from home invaders is f*cking stupid.

There are other ways of protecting people than simply stopping criminals directly. And there are better ways of protecting yourself than shooting back. My option would be to simply lock myself in the loo.

I guess you guys don't have a lot of home invasions over there. What do you do when they start busting the door in? Yell, "occupied!" and hope they leave you alone?

1) The Department of Justice statistics show that 80% of criminals in prison got the firearms for their crime from illegal sources.

And what exactly were those illegal sources? Nicking them off people who bought them legally?

Smuggled into the country, for the most part.

1a) Before you say "tighter regulation", please remember that the US has way too many miles of coastline and borders to ever seal completely.

Of course not, but the fact that its impossible to keep all weapons out is not an excuse for flooding the country with them.

I think you've let the per capita fool you; the majority of people over here don't own guns. The people who do usually own more than one, which skews those figures.

1b) unless you want to search every house in the country arbitrarily, you won't find all of the guns. Oh, right. That would be highly illegal anyways.

Easy solution to that problem - change the law.

No, my friend, that would be changing the Constitution. See? I doubt we'll be doing that any time soon.

2) Even though we have way more guns per capita, and we are a way larger country, we still don't have nearly the highest murder rates in the world. Even Poland has a higher rate.

And? The murder rate for firearms paints a different story, showing that a big part of the problem the States have is due to firearms. Ergo, trying to limit that aspect of the problem will probably have a disproportionate effect on the overall murder rate.

Yes, the number of firearm related murders would certainly go down, soon to be replaced by a massive increase in stabbing deaths. Or, like the attack here a few months ago, people will just set other people on fire. Hey, let's ban gasoline! And, if you think a person couldn't light another on fire with gas from a distance, you haven't observed how quickly a gas fire will follow a trail of gas.

Quick side note: your estimates of effective pistol ranges are way off. The average schmoe with a pistol wouldn't hit a bison at 20 yards. The people who train in safety and practice a lot generally aren't criminals. Or our cops; they can't hit sh*t either.

15-20 feet would be a better estimate of the accurate range of a handgun for the average shooter.

3) The large majority of firearm deaths are suicides. Those people still would've found a way to kill themselves; banning guns wouldn't help. I imagine this also colors the statistics a bit.

You didn't read that article properly.

Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US

Okay, so only half of ours are suicides. Whatever. The standing points are that the statistics likely include those figures (skewing it), and those people would just find another way to commit suicide. A friend of mine euthanized himself with the same chemicals he'd used to put animals to sleep.

Homicides comprise a far higher proportion of all firearms deaths in the US than other countries in its income bracket.

Okay, here's what I'm getting at: how many of those deaths were criminals being shot by honest citizens defending themselves? That's not one of the percentages I've seen in any studies.

It would be ass-backwards to remove people's ability to defend themselves before we straighten out ineptness and corruption in our police, and reduce the number of criminals on the street with guns. You won't change that figure by taking guns from law-abiding citizens.

4) Gun deaths are the same as they were 30 years ago, even though people have access to much more advanced weapons and ammunition today.

So what? A firearm doesn't need a dozen fancy gizmos to kill people.

No, but it sure makes a difference when my 9mm Hydrashok rounds are more lethal than a .44 mag from 1979. Lower recoil, higher magazine capacity. One shot takes the place of four or five.

So, I don't see why people assume that legal gun owners do anything but add another layer of defense against violent criminals.

Because the US, unlike Somalia, is supposed to be a civilised country. In civilised countries the task of protecting the population from violent criminals fall to the police. If the police aren't up to the job, then the solution is to improve the police, not vigilantism.

Yes, those magic police that apparently can show up within seconds in England. I'd love to see some footage of those supersonic cops someday. You do have supersonic cops, right? Because 5 minutes with three or four thugs stabbing you with knives, or even just kicking you, and you probably won't be getting up.

Our response times vary between fifteen minutes and over 24 hours, as I've seen first-hand. Either one is far too long.

Ah! I've got it! Our criminals must not be as civilized as yours! See, over here, they're just as likely to just kick your door in and shoot you to death, or beat you to death, and then loot your stuff. You're assuming that the criminal will let you go if you co-operate. That is not how it works over here.

I can't flee, the cops won't show up until after I'm beaten or stabbed to death even if no one had guns, and yet I'd somehow be safer if I didn't own a gun? I would have little defense against a group of intruders without one.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the solution to being mugged is to fight back. My solution to being mugged would be to give em the f***ing wallet. If somebody want that, then they can have it - I've no intention of risking pissing them off.

Of course, if somebody's simply out looking for people to beat up or kill then there's bugger all that can be done, but if that's a major threat in your area then you need to Motorman the place, not just have civvies walking round with guns.

Like I said above, you're leaving it up to them whether you live or die. I don't feel like leaving it up to anybody but myself.

[Aaron]

US Wal-Marts don't have the ammo in a locked display case?

[Tsukiyumi]

US Wal-Marts don't have the ammo in a locked display case?

Yeah, they did mostly; some ammo was on shelves behind a manned counter. They stopped selling it after "Bowling for Columbine."

Which is fine by me; I get mine at discount from a friend's shop.

[Aaron]

Yeah, they did mostly; some ammo was on shelves behind a manned counter. They stopped selling it after "Bowling for Columbine."

Ours (depending on location) still sell ammo for rifles and shotguns but they no longer carry firearms.

Which is fine by me; I get mine at discount from a friend's shop.

Yeah, I get mine at a local store. Wal-Mart doesn't carry anything i need anyways.

[Tyyr]

I usually buy my ammo at the range. They sell their target shooting stuff for cheap, you just have to use it all there. Not so hard with a .38 or .45 but it takes some dedication with a .22

Wal-Mart's ammo is in a locked case.